Jane Doe v. ABA Accredited University ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1978
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ABA ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION;
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 22-2186
JANE DOE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ABA ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY; AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION;
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Patricia Tolliver Giles, District Judge; John Foster Anderson, Magistrate
Judge. (1:22-cv-00947-PTG-JFA)
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 2 of 4
Submitted: April 20, 2023 Decided: April 24, 2023
Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jane Doe, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 3 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Jane Doe appeals the district court's orders denying her motions for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis, for a temporary restraining order, and to proceed under a pseudonym.
For the following reasons, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.
Turning first to the district court’s denial of Doe’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, we have jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal because an order
denying a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is an appealable interlocutory order.
Roberts v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950) (per curiam). We have reviewed the
record and discern no reversible error on this point.
Next, Doe argues that the district court erred in denying her motion for a temporary
restraining order. Absent exceptional circumstances, the denial of a motion for a temporary
restraining order is considered interlocutory and is not appealable. See Office of Personnel
Mgmt. v. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Emps., 473 U.S. 1301, 1303-04 (1985). Exceptional
circumstances exist where the denial effectively decides the merits of the case. See
Virginia v. Tenneco, Inc., 538 F.2d 1026, 1029-30 (4th Cir. 1976). Upon a review of the
record, we conclude that no such exceptional circumstances are present in this case.
Therefore, we dismiss this portion of Doe’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Finally, Doe argues that the district court erred in denying her motion to proceed
under a pseudonym. We review the court’s decision on this issue for an abuse of discretion,
recognizing that “proceeding by pseudonym is a rare dispensation.” Doe v. Pub. Citizen,
749 F.3d 246, 273 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have identified
3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2186 Doc: 13 Filed: 04/24/2023 Pg: 4 of 4
several factors for district courts to consider in determining whether a party should be
allowed to proceed under a pseudonym:
Whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid
the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve
privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature; whether
identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the
requesting party or even more critically, to innocent nonparties; the ages of
the person whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; whether the
action is against a governmental or private party; and, relatedly, the risk of
unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed
anonymously.
Id. Upon review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly considered the
relevant factors, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of Doe’s
motion.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, dismiss for lack of jurisdiction in part, and deny as
moot Doe’s motion to expedite. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART,
DISMISSED IN PART
4